Short‐term high‐ vs low‐velocity isokinetic lengthening training results in greater hypertrophy of the elbow flexors in young men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study I – The effect of fast (3.66 rad/s, FAST) or slow (0.35 rad/s, SLOW) isokinetic high‐resistance muscle lengthening contractions on muscle fiber and whole muscle cross‐sectional area (CSA) of the elbow flexors was investigated in young men. Twelve subjects (23.8±2.4 years, mean±SD) performed maximal resistive lengthening isokinetic exercise with both arms for 8 weeks (3 days/week), during which they trained one arm at a FAST velocity while the contralateral arm performed an equivalent number of contractions at a SLOW velocity. Before (PRE) and after (POST) the training, percutaneous muscle biopsies were taken from the mid‐belly of the biceps brachii and analyzed for fiber type and CSA. Type I muscle fiber size increased PRE to POST ( P <0.05) in both FAST and SLOW arms. Type IIa and IIx muscle fiber CSA increased in both arms, but the increases were greater in the FAST vs the SLOW trained arm ( P <0.05). Elbow flexor CSA increased in FAST and SLOW arms, with the increase in the FAST arm showing a trend toward being greater ( P =0.06). Maximum torque generating capacity also increased to a greater degree ( P <0.05) in the FAST arm, regardless of testing velocity. Study II – In a separate study, we attempted to provide some explanation of the greater hypertrophy observed in study I by examining an indicator of protein remodeling (Z‐line streaming), which we hypothesized would be greater in the FAST condition. Nine men (21.7±2.4 years) performed an acute bout ( N =30, 3 sets × 10 repetitions/set) of maximal lengthening contractions at FAST and SLOW velocities used in the training study. Biopsies revealed that FAST lengthening contractions resulted in more (185±17%; P <0.01) Z‐band streaming/mm(2) muscle, vs the SLOW arm. In conclusion, training using FAST (3.66 rad/s) lengthening contractions leads to greater hypertrophy and strength gains than SLOW (0.35 rad/s) lengthening contractions. The greater hypertrophy seen in the FAST trained arm (study I) may be related to a greater amount of protein remodeling (Z‐band streaming; study II).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".